self-study report€¦ · educational leadership, graduate programs in counseling and school...

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITYINDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY401 North Seventh Street401 North Seventh Street

Room 109Room 109Terre Haute, IN 47809Terre Haute, IN 47809

November 17, 2019 12:00 a.m.November 17, 2019 12:00 a.m.

Type of Visit:Continuing visit - Initial Teacher PreparationContinuing visit - Advanced Preparation

Self-Study ReportSelf-Study Report

Form Version: 1.0

Conf

ident

ial

CAEP Self-Study ReportI. EPP Overview

Guide to the Self-Study Report

a. Context and Unique Characteristics

The Bayh College of Education is one of five academic colleges at Indiana StateUniversity (ISU), located in the Wabash Valley of western central Indiana. ISU wasfounded in 1865 as the Indiana State Normal School, later named Indiana StateTeachers College, then Indiana State College, and in 1965, it was renamed IndianaState University. ISU is a state-supported doctoral/professional university that hasbeen accredited continuously by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) since 1915.ISU is the most diverse public university in the state, and a majority of its studentscome from Indiana and remain in Indiana after graduation. The Bayh College ofEducation's EPP is currently accredited by the National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE) and is undergoing its first ever Council for theAccreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) review in 2019.

The Bayh College of Education's EPP is the third largest EPP in the state, using Title IIdata mandated by the state (latest year reported 2015-16). In particular, the BayhCollege of Education houses teacher preparation programs in elementary education,early childhood education and special education in the Department of Teaching andLearning and supports secondary education and all-grade programs housed in theirspecific content departments. It also houses graduate-level P-12 educationaladministration, student affairs, and higher education programs in the Department ofEducational Leadership, graduate programs in counseling and school psychology, andB.S. and M.S. programs in speech-language pathology in the Department ofCommunication Disorder and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology.Counseling and speech-language pathology programs are accredited by the Councilof Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and theCouncil on Academic Accreditation--American Speech-Language-Hearing Association(CAA-ASHA), respectively.

The EPP has been effortful in bringing disparate programs under a more unifiedumbrella, in terms of administrative, curricular, and instructional structures. As partof a Higher Learning Commission's (HLC) Open Pathways initiative, competency-based curricular re-imagination of teacher education programs has been taking placesince 2018, with redesign activities providing the foundational priority. Finally, ourpartnerships with the P-12 schools have encouraged us to begin offering year-longinternships in pre-service teaching preparation. All initial certification programsprovide experiential learning opportunities in school settings, and communityengagement remains an identifying focus of our college and university.

Please note the Carnegie Classification, Doctoral/Research University as indicated onthis self-study report is incorrect. The correct Carnegie Classification isDoctoral/Professional. At the time this report was prepared, this classification wasnot an option.

(Confidential) Page 1

December 19, 2013 Dr. Daniel J. Bradley President Indiana State University 200 N. 7th St. Terre Haute, IN 47809-9989 Dear President Bradley: The progress report you submitted to our office has now been reviewed. A staff analysis of the report is enclosed. On behalf of the Commission, staff accepts the report on assessment of student learning. No further reports are required. The institution’s next reaffirmation of accreditation is scheduled for 2020 – 2021. Also enclosed is a copy of the institution’s Statement of Affiliation Status, which reflects the actions taken by the Commission. For more information on the interim report process contact Lil Nakutis, Process Administrator, Accreditation Services, at [email protected]. Thank you. HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION

STAFF ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL REPORT DATE: December 18, 2013 STAFF: Timothy Gallimore

REVIEWED BY: Katherine C. Delaney

INSTITUTION: Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Daniel J. Bradley, President PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION RE: REPORT: A progress report due 12/31/2013 focused on assessment of student learning. ITEMS ADDRESSED IN REPORT: The office of the Commission received Indiana State University’s report on the above topic on 12/2/2013. STAFF ANALYSIS: Indiana State University hosted a comprehensive visit in November 2010. The visiting team noted a concern about assessment at the University:

Although ISU is engaged in several important assessment initiatives, most of these are quite recent and there is little or no available outcome data. In some cases, such as the general education program (Foundational Studies), even the outcome measures are yet to be developed. Overall, outcomes assessment is very uneven at ISU.

The team, therefore, recommended this progress report and advised:

This report should provide an update on the implementation of the assessment program for the Foundational Studies Program (general education) with at least one year of data, as well as an update on assessment activities which reflect at least one year of data collection, analysis and anticipated use of results for all academic programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

The progress report submitted by Indiana State University began with an update on the state of assessment at the University as a whole:

With support from participation in the HLC’s Academy for Assessment of Student Learning, the university implemented data collection in the Foundational Studies program in 2012-13, thus achieving the required progress for that program. Additionally, of the 136 degree programs offered by Indiana State, 122 (90%) have met the requirement of completing at least one assessment cycle, including anticipated use of the results. Of the 14 programs that have not completed an assessment cycle, 3 will collect and analyze data in 2013-14, 7 are newly approved programs that have assessment plans in place and will collect and analyze data as students progress through the programs, and 4 do not yet have assessment plans in place.

Assessment of the Foundational Studies Program

A revised and renamed general education program, Foundational Studies 2010, was implemented in Fall 2010. At the time of the comprehensive visit, however, the Foundational Studies program had not yet developed assessment measures. Since that time, several initiatives have been implemented to establish an effective assessment program for the Foundational Studies Program, such as:

• Data collection has included Course Learning Objectives Surveys of student perceptions of the effectiveness of Foundational Studies courses in supporting achievement of the identified learning objectives and administration of the ETS® Proficiency Profile exam, which measures student learning in four areas. The Course Learning Objectives Surveys (CLOS) were piloted in late Spring 2011 for five of the FS categories. In late Spring 2012, surveys were distributed to all students enrolled in FS courses in all categories. The primary function of the CLOS is as a means of formative assessment, but it also functions as an indirect measure of student achievement of the learning objectives. Spring 2012 responses were aggregated by category and descriptive statistics were generated by the Assessment Subcommittee. The results suggest that, overall, student perceptions of both mastery of category objectives and gains in mastery were positive, with the lowest average score for all questions in all categories being greater than 3.5 (“neither agree or disagree” = 3). Half of the categories (7 of 14) had averages for at least half of the survey questions above 4.0 (= “agree”). The ETS® Proficiency Profile allows institutions to evaluate learning gains between entering and exiting students, as well as to compare institutional results to national benchmarks.

Following a small pilot implementation in 2010, Indiana State administered the ETS® Proficiency Profile to a sample of entering students (N=230) in Fall 2012 and to a sample of exiting students (N=232) in Spring 2013. While the results of the exam are encouraging, indicating statistically significant gains (p

The Office of Assessment and Accreditation is to support and enhance academic and non-academic assessment, as well as other activities related to continued improvement initiatives and efforts to enhance institutional performance and student learning outcomes. The progress report provided examples of how assessment findings have been used to enhance program effectiveness. Examples were provided from each college of the use of assessment results to inform program improvement. Continuous Improvement of Assessment at Indiana State University Several points were made to demonstrate the continued involvement of Indiana State in the assessment initiatives:

• Indiana State’s participation in the Academy for Assessment of Student Learning, which extends through 2015, will not only serve to maintain attention on and support assessment of the Foundational Studies learning objectives, but also will help to strengthen assessment of degree programs and broaden and deepen the culture of assessment at Indiana State.

• In Fall 2013, the university established the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence. The Assessment and Accreditation Coordinator will collaborate with the Center’s director to provide professional development opportunities focused on identifying student learning outcomes, supporting student achievement of the outcomes, and enhancing course-level and program-level assessment of student achievement.

• The Extended Learning office has implemented several recent initiatives designed to strengthen the online learning experience and support assessment efforts.

• Since 2002, Indiana State has administered the NSSE, and more recently, the BCSSE and the FSSE, on a two- or three-year rotation. Previously, the data gathered through these surveys has not been widely shared or used to inform improvements to enhance student success. While not measures of student learning, the results of these surveys, particularly when used in conjunction with direct assessment, can guide improvements in both academic and cocurricular programming to support student engagement and success.

The progress report then provided evidence of the initiatives taken in seven of the colleges of the University to conduct meaningful assessment and to improve student learning based on the assessment data. Staff comment: It is clear from the excellent progress report submitted by Indiana State that the University has given focused attention and resources to assessment since the 2010 comprehensive visit. The progress the University has made is very clear and the evidence of the progress is clearly set forward in the progress report. Indiana State has clearly responded notably and completely to the concerns of the 2010 comprehensive visit team related to assessment. The University is commended for such significant progress. STAFF ACTION: Accept the report on assessment of student learning. No further reports are required. The institution’s next reaffirmation of accreditation is scheduled for 2020 – 2021.

STATEMENT OF AFFILIATION STATUS

Indiana State University200 N. 7th St.

Terre Haute, IN 47809-9989

Affiliation Status: Candidate: N/AAccreditation: (1915- .)

Nature of Organization

Control: PublicDegrees Awarded: Certificate, Associates, Bachelors, Masters, Specialist,

Doctors

Conditions of Affiliation:

Stipulations on AffiliationStatus:

None.

Approval of New Additional Locations:

The Commission's Notification Program is available for new locations within the United States.

Approval of Distance andCorrespondence Coursesand Programs:

The institution has been approved under Commission policy to offer up to 20% of its total degree programs through distance education. The processes for expanding distance education are defined in other Commission documents.

Accreditation Activities: Open Pathway, Quality Initiative Report: 08/31/2020Open Pathway, Quality Initiative Proposal: 08/31/2018

Summary of Commission Review

Year of Last Reaffirmation of Accreditation: 2010 - 2011

Year for Next Reaffirmation of Accreditation: 2020 - 2021

Last Date of Information Change: 12/19/2013

Accreditation Note:

STATEMENT OF AFFILIATION STATUS

None.

Name Change:Indiana State Teachers College to Indiana State College (1961) to Indiana State University (1965)

Academy Participation:Participating in the Academy for Assessment of Student Learning.

Indiana State Letter

Indiana State Analysis

Indiana State SAS.pdf

HLC response Letter

2011 HLC Letter

Name

Highest Degree Earned

Field or Specialty area of highest degree

Program Assignments

Teaching assignment or role within the program

P-12 certificates or licensure held

P-12 experiences including teaching or administration dates of engagement in these roles, last five years

Carrie Ball

Ph.D.

School Psychology

Program coordinator; teaching, clinical supervision.

Teaching graduate courses, practicum supervision, academic advising, program administration.

Licensed Psychologist, HSPP Endorsement (IN)

Professional Educator’s License – School Service (School Psychologist)

Full-time faculty appointment, including clinical supervision and teaching, 2011-Present.

Program coordinator, 2012-Present

School psychologist, 2012-2016

Alyce Hopple

Ph.D.

School Psychology

Teaching, clinical supervision of graduate students.

Teaching graduate courses, practicum supervision,


Full-time faculty appointment, 2018 – Present.

School Psychologist, 2016-2018

Practicum Supervisor, 2017-2018

School Psychology, EdS – Clinical Faculty

Chavez Phelps

Ph.D.

School Psychology

Teaching, clinical supervision of graduate students.

Teaching graduate courses, practicum supervision,

Licensed Psychologist, HSPP Endorsement (IN)

Full-time faculty appointment, including clinical supervision and teaching, 2011-Present.

Craig Barnhart

EdS

School Psychology

Practicum & Internship Supervisor

Practicum & Internship Supervisor


School Psychologist

Practicum supervisor 2017-2018

Internship supervisor 2018-Present

Sarah Cheesman

EdS

School Psychology

Practicum Supervisor



School Psychologist

Practicum Supervisor, 2014-2017, 2018 - present

Catherine Cunningham

PhD

School Psychology

Internship Supervisor



Psychology Dept Chair and Intern supervisor for CBSED during the last 5 years

Internship supervisor, 2016-present

Julie Dunn

EdS

School Psychology



School Psychologist, Type 73 (IL),

NCSP

School Psychologist

Internship Supervisor, 2018 - present

Breanna Gile

PhD

School Psychology




Practicum Supervisor, 2014-2015, 2018-present

Adam Grieve

PhD

Educational Psychology – School Psychology




School Psychologist –

2013-15: Sandhill Elementary (K-5; Stoughton, WI)

2015-18: Chapel Glen Elementary (K-6; MSD Wayne Township)

Current: Rhoades Elementary (K-6; MSD Wayne Township)

Practicum Supervisor, 2018 - Present

Heidi Kotva-Strickland,

Ph.D.

School Psychology




School Psychologist, Covered Bridge Special Education District

Practicum Supervisor, 2014-Present

Kristina Needham

EdS

School Psychologist




General Elementary 1-6, 7/8 non depart

Language Arts 1-9 Endorsement

Learning Disabled k-12, minor

School Psychologist 2009-current


2014-2017, 2018-present

Toni Skaggs

Master

Educational Administration



Director of Special Education

Elementary Administration and Supervision

General Elementary 1-6, 7/8 non depart

Learning Disabled k-12, minor

Seriously Emotionally Handicapped, k-12, minor

Director of Special Services, Greater Lafayette Area Special Services

Practicum Supervisor, 2017-present

Jessie Shacklette

Ed.S.

School Psychology




School Psychologist District Supervisor, Perry Township Schools.


Jessie Shuemaker

School Psychology



Professional Educator’s License – School Psychologist K-12

School Psychologist

Internship Supervisor, 2018-Present

Michael Stinson

Ed.S.

School Psychology




School Psychologist, North Gibson Schools

Internship Supervisor, 2018-present

Katie Williams

Ed.S.

School Psychology



School Psychologist, Type 73 (IL)

General Administrative

Psychologist (2014-2015): Early Childhood Special Ed, K, 7-8 Middle School.

Psychologist (Fall 2015-Present): PK-12 assessment, identification, crisis intervention, counseling, intervention consultation

Special Education Program Director

(Fall 2015-Present): LEA in IEP meetings, litigation, law/regulation compliancy, special education program development


Educational Leadership – District and Building Level

Name



Program Assignments




Brad Balch

Ph.D.

Educational Leadership

Med, EdS, Ph.D.

Non-Degree principal and superintendent licensure

EDLR 758/793 – Principal Internship and Seminar; EDLR 790/792 – Superintendent Internship and Individual Research; EDLR 655 – School Law; EDLR 850 – Leadership Theory and Governance; EDLR 682 – Contemporary Problems in Ed. Adm.; EDLR 708 – Seminar in Foundations of Ed.; EDLR 899 - Dissertation

Indiana Administration and Supervision Professional License

Superintendent #759190

Principal– Elementary

#595120

Principal– Secondary

#577519

Indiana Teacher’s Professional License

Industrial Technology (K – 12) #755103

Mathematics (5-1 #755103

Oklahoma Teacher’s Provisional License

Industrial Technology (7 – 12) #166241L

Multiple Consulting/Facilitation/

Board positions from 2013-2018.

Terry McDaniel

Ph.D.


Professor/Program Coordinator

EDLR 650, EDLR 682

EDLR 710

EDLR 751

EDLR 759

EDLR 759

EDLR 792

Elementary Teaching

Principal

Superintendent

Continual presentations, principal mentoring, professional development

superintendent mentoring

superintendent

searches, research

Bobbie Jo Monahan

Ph. D.


Senior Instructor

EDLR 650

EDLR 656

EDLR 681

EDLR 683

EDLR 758

EDLR 793

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Continual presentations, principal mentoring professional development

Steve Gruenert

Ph.D.


Professor

EDLR 605

EDLR 608

EDLR 656

EDLR 681

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Continual presentations, research, professional development

Karen Goeller

Ph.D.


Adjunct Professor

EDLR 683

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Superintendent

Assistant Superintendent

Michael Sargent

Ph.D.


Adjunct Professor

EDLR 710

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Superintendent


David Marcotte

Ph.D.


Adjunct Professor

EDLR 751

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Superintendent

Superintendent,

CEO Urban School Association

Tom Keeley

Ph.D.


Adjunct Professor

EDLR754

EDLR 757

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Superintendent


Paul Kaiser

Ph.D.


Adjunct Professor

EDLR 753

Secondary

Teaching

Principal

Superintendent


Visual Impairment Licensure Program

Name



Program Assignments




Olaya Landa-Vialard

Ph.D.

Special Education-Visual Impairments


SPED 651: The Eye, Its Function and Health

SPED 656: Directed Experience in Visual Impairment

EC-12 Special Education

EC-12 Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments

PK-12 Educational Diagnostician

EC-12 Bilingual/ESL-Spanish

1-8 Elementary English and Self-Contained

July 2013 – November 2018-taught special education courses at Illinois State University as an Assistant Professor of Low Vision and Blindness as well as coordinated the program

Bill Powell

B.S.

Special Education

Endorsement in Visual Impairments; NLS Literary Braille Transcribers License; CATIS Certified Assistive Technology Instructional Specialist; LAWS, MAGIC, ZoomText Certifications


SPED 653: Communication Skills for Individuals with Visual Impairment

K-12 Orthopedic and Special Health Problems; K-12 Mildly Mentally Handicapped; K-12 Visual Impairments

Bosma, Director of Assistive Technology; previous teacher at the Indiana School for the Blind

Missy Garber

Ph.D.

Ph.D. in Anthropology; certification in Visual Impairments


SPED 653: Communication Skills for Individuals with Visual Impairments

SPED 654: Instructional Accommodations for Individuals with Visual Impairment

P-12 – Visual Impairments

Visual Support Teacher 2009-present

Rhonda Rhoades

M.S. Ed

M.A.

Special Education: Visual Impairment

Blind

Rehabilitation:

Orientation

And Mobility


SPED 655: Principles of Orientation and Mobility

K-12 IN Blind/

Low

Vision

Teaching

License

ACVREP

Certification

COMS

P-12

Blind/Low

Vision

Teacher/O&M Instructor-

Warsaw

Community

Schools,

Warsaw, IN

Aug 2010-

present

Initial Programs

Teaching and Learning Faculty

Name



Program Assignments




Addleman, Becky

Ed.D.

Curriculum Instruction

Elementary Education

Assistant Prof; ELED 200; ELED 400;

K-12 Music; 6-12 Language Arts

Sabbatical – reading recovery – 1st graders

Bauserman, Kathy

Ph.D.

Elementary Edu - Literacy


ELED 397; ELED 400; TOTAL

Holds a life license in Indiana in the Areas of K-6, 7-8 nondepartmental for elementary education and a K-12 reading specialist certification

None

Bolinger, Kevin

Ph.D

History


ELED 259; ELED 392

None

None

Burden, Robin

Special Education

Special Education

SPED 321; SPED 402; ELED 400; Director: T&L MED, C&I Ph.D

Previous

Primary Ed; Elem Ed; Mental Retardation; Specific Learning Disabilities

None

Duarte, Georgianna

Ph.D

Early Childhood

Early Childhood Education

ELED 110; ELED 440

None

None

Hinshaw, Rebecca

Ph.D

Special Education; Mild Disabilities

Special Education

SPED 314; SPED 318; SPED 311; SPED 400; SPED 457; SPED 590; SPED 591;SPED 578; SPED 630; SPED 698D

(Ri;e 46-47) General Elem. 1-6; 7/8 Non-Dept.; Minors K-12: Mild Mentally Handicapped; Leaning Disabled; Seriously Emotionally Handicapped

None

Huisinga, Shawn

Ph.D

Special Education

Special Education

SPED 203; SPED 215; SPED 226

Elementary, P-12; Special Education; Education Administration

Supervised an elementary afterschool program

Knaebel, Debra

Ph.D

Curriculum and Instruction


EDUC 368; ELED 324; ELED 398; ELED 400; CIMT 350

General Elementary license; Music 1-9; Reading 1-9;

None

Leinenbach, Marylin

Ph.D

Curriculum and Instruction


ELED457; ELED 400

K-12 License

48 Years of teaching experience; Elementary and Middle School Math

Moulton, Matthew

Ph.D

Educational Theory & Practice: Middle Grades Education Focus

Secondary

CIMT 200; CIMT 595

6-12 Mathematics; PK-12 School Counseling

8th grade algebra instructor 2013-2014

Nail, Melissa

Ph.D



Elementary Program Coordinator; ELED 200; ELED 250; ELED 259;ELED 400; ELED 457

MS teaching license K-8, Remedial Reading K-12; Technology, K-12 (license has expired)

None

Park, Yong Joon

Ph.D

Elementary Education w/emphasis in Early Childhood Education

Early Childhood Education

ELED 220; ELED 335; SPED 203

PK-3 Teaching license; PK-12

reading specialist license

None

Peng, Li-Wei

Ph.D.

Educational Technology

Education Technology

CIMT 543; CIMT 620; CIMT 625; CIMT 630; CIMT 640; CIMT 657; CIMT 720; CIMT 672; CIMT 793

None

None

Quatroche, Diana

Ph.D

Instruction & Learning (Reading)

Elementary Education Reading

ELED 485; ELED 457; ELED 682; ELED 685; ELED 686; ELED 595R; ELED 681;

K-8 Teaching License, NY; Reading Specialist, Supervisory II (reading), and Instructional II, PA;K-8, Pre-K, and Reading, OH

None

Thacker, Della

Master’s

Mathematics; Endorsement in GT; Endorsement in Jr/MS

Secondary

CIMT 400/L; CIMT 402; CIMT 200; CIMT 650

Endorsement in GT; Endorsement in Jr/MS

Taught Middle School (6-9) mathematics for 10 years

Tinnerman, Larry

Ed.S.


Special Education; Secondary

CIMT 350; CIMT 800; CIMT 899; ELED 215; SPED 226

Secondary Social Studies; special Education N-12; Mid-Level Mathematics 7-9; Microsoft Office User Specialist Expert Certification; Mid-Level 7-9; Tech Ops

None

Wheeler, Pat

Ph.D

Instructional Supervision


ELED 200; ELED 250; ELED 392; ELED 397; ELED 398; ELED 400; ELED 457; ELED 485 ELED 680 ELED 681; ELED 682 ELED 685; ELED 686; ELED 770;

Teaching License; Elementary K-6;

Med Specialist Certificate K-12

Co-director of PDS with Vigo County Schools

Woolard, Sandy

Ph.D


Secondary

CIMT 301; CIMT 302; CIMT 860 CIMT 899; EDUC 660; EDUC 775

Teaching License (secondary) education-history, geography, sociology)

None

Flurkey, Deborah

M.Ed.



ELED 457; ELED 200; ELED 250;

Teaching License

Public School Teacher 17 years (SC, WA, IN)

Foy, Sheri

Master’s


Elementary

ELED 200

Teaching License

VCSC Elementary teacher since 1991

Garletts, Donovan

Ph.D.

Education Administration

Elementary

ELED 259

Administrator’s License

Assistant Superintendent since 2017

McNichols, Julie

Master’s

Special Education

Special Education

SPED 226

Teaching License

Public school teacher since 2001

Rowshandel, Tammy

Ph.D.

Education Administration

Special Education

SPED 602

Administrators License; K-12 Principal license; Severe Disabilities teaching license; ED teaching license; Dir. Of Sp. Ed. license

Presently - VCSC high school principal

Shivers, Angela

Master’s

Special Education

Special Education

SPED 226

Teaching License

Presently VSCS teacher

Steppe, Linda

Master’s



ELED 250/L

Life Teaching License; Endorsements in Reading, Computer and G/T

Recently retired elementary teacher from VCSC

Thoma, Robin

Master’s

Special Education

Special Education

SPED 226

Teaching License

Former VCSC teacher

Walker, Amy

Ph.D.

Special Education

Special Education

SPED 602

Teaching License

Presently VSCS elementary teacher (19 yrs)

Campus Partners – Secondary Content Area

Name



Program Assignments




Brad Venable

Ph.D.

Art Education

Program Coordinator for Art Education.

Teaching all 5 courses in the major and one directed to ELED Majors (ARTE 390).

Life License, Indiana

1979-1987, Clay Community Schools (Art, Grade 6-12).

1987-2002. Vigo County School Corp. (Art, Grades 6-9).

Chris Drew

PhD

English

Program Supervisor, SPA Accreditation Supervisor

English 307: Writing for Teachers of English; English 386: Teaching English (methods course); English 402: Professional Development in English Teaching

Indiana Secondary license in English, Theatre Arts, World Civilization (license currently lapsed)

Writers in the Schools program participation—Terre Haute South, 2017–present

Dan Clark

PhD

History

Coordinator/

Director

SS305, SS306

Social Studies Methods Courses

None

None

Elsun Seung

PhD

Science Education

Director of Center for Science Education

-Secondary science teaching methods course (SCED396L,

SCED398L)

-Student teaching (SCED402)

-Elementary science teaching methods course

(SCED393/393L)

None

Julia Heath Reynolds

PhD

Music Education

Student Teaching Supervision

Fieldwork Supervision

MUS 393

MUS 392

MUS 418

P-12 Florida

Sensory Friendly Concert

Doug Keiser

DMA

Music - Conducting

Student Teaching Supervision

MUS 382

MUS 394

MUS 383

Iowa?

Dennis Ballard

Music Education

Associate Dean Arts and Sciences;

MUS 201

Nikk Pilato

PhD

Music Education

Student Teaching Supervision;

MUS 394

P-12 Florida

Kara Harris

Ed.D.

Career and Technical Education

Associate Dean

Expired, initial licensure in technology education

None

Myung-ah Lee

PhD

Sport Pedagogy

Coordinator

PE 217, 442, 290, 302, 310, 400

Secondary PE licensure holder

None

Scott Sterling

PhD

Second Language Studies

English as a Second Language

LING 316 (teaching methods)

LING 420 (language acquisition)

None

None

Jodi Frost

PhD

Math

Teach content and methods courses for K-12 pre-service teachers and math majors

Teaching and Learning - University Supervisors

Name



Program Assignments




Terry Crowe

MS

School Curriculum and Supervision

University Supervisor

Supervise student teachers

Lifetime Principal’s License 6-12

None

Dan Curless

MS

Physical Education and Health




Teacher and principal

1972-2014

Pamela Gibboney

MS




Lifetime General Elementary Conversion

None

James Hagedorn

MS

Secondary Administration



Lifetime Secondary Administration and Supervision Conversion

None

David Harris

MS

Secondary Administration and Supervision



Lifetime Secondary Administration and Supervision

None

Sandy Kassis

MS





None

Connie Koch

MS





Elementary teacher

1985-2017

Susan Mardis

MS





Middle School Principal 2013-2017

Sherryn Miley

MS

Secondary Education



Lifetime English Conversion

None

Mark Miller

MS

Secondary School Administration




None

Stephen Moore

MS

Secondary Education



Lifetime Secondary Education

None

Timothy Payne

MS

Secondary Education




None

Michael Sheridan

MS

Secondary Education




None

Carolyn Sinnott

MS

Secondary Education




None

Steve Ulrich

MS

Elementary Education and Administration




None

Millie Vaughn

PhD





None

Shannon Wood

MS

Secondary Education




None

Clinical Educator List

Capacity Dimensions

EPP Description of Metric

EPP Data

Comparative Entity Data

(Illinois State University College of Education)

Title and description of supplemental evidence/documentation of qualify of each dimension

Facilities

Building Floor Plan

Dedicated Educational Areas

· 14 classrooms equipped with internet capability and presentation software

· Center for Mathematics Instruction

· Computer Center with 19 computer stations

· Two Distance Education Classrooms

· Two micro-teaching labs

· Blumberg Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Special Education

· Norma and William Grosjean Clinic at University Hall – Porter School Psychology Center, Rowe Clinic for Communicative Disorders, and Counseling Services Clinic

Administrative Areas

· Dean’s Office

· Three Academic Department Offices

· Education Student Services

· Student Success Center

· Indiana Principal Leadership Institute (IPLI)

· Instructional and Information Technology Services (IITS)

Eight conference/meeting rooms

Meditation/Quiet Space

440-seat University Theatre and Atrium open to the community

Dedicated Facilities:

· Teacher Education Center

· Mary and Jean Borg Center for Reading and Literacy

· Special Education Assistive Technology Center

· Studio Teach

· Virtual Nest

· The Richard L. Benson Flexible Learning Space

Building Plans

Fiscal Support

Annual Budget

2016-2017 BCOE Actual Budget Expenditures $5,663,074

Annual Budget Appropriate Funds:

$12,000,000

Budget

Administrative Support

Dean’s Office

Assessment Office

COE Academic Departments

Education Student Services

Dean’s Office – Dean, Associate Dean, 3 administrative support staff, 2 graduate assistants

Assessment Office – Director of Assessment, 1 graduate assistant

Academic Departments – 3 department chairs, 9 program coordinators, 8 administrative/support staff, 46 graduate assistants

Education Student Services –

Director (Assistant Dean), Assistant Director, 2 student workers, 4 support staff

· Dean’s Office

See EPP Organization Chart evidence upload

3 – BCOE Organizational Chart

Candidate Support Services

Education Student Services

Instructional and Information Technology Services

Education Student Services –

Director and Assistant Director, Recruitment and Advising Coordinator, Retention and Completion Coordinator, Scholarship and Partnership Coordinator

Financial Aid Counselors – Office of Financial Aid

University College – for students with fewer than 24 credit hours.

Career Center representatives specific to colleges

Student Support Services – free tutoring and disability services

Graduation Specialists – for retention and timely graduation

Sycamores Care – immediate support for financial, mental health, academic concerns

Student Counseling Center – Mental health services (immediate/crisis intervention, and long-term support)

21st Century Scholar program coordinator

College specific mentoring programs

Early Childhood Education Center

Services:

· U-College

· Visor Academic Center-Tutoring

· TRIO- First Generation College Students

· Financial Aid Specialists: Office of Financial Aid

· Veterans and Military Services

· Academic Advisors: Major Department Advisors

· Student Access and Accommodation Services

· Career Center

See EPP Organization Chart evidence upload

3 – BCOE Organizational Chart

Candidate feedback formal and informal

Formal – EPP Created alumni surveys, Advising Meetings, EPP Created Key Assessments, Course Evaluations, Case study

Informal – weekly/bi-weekly meetings with course instructors and TOTAL coaches, Exit Interviews,

Formal

EPP Created Completer Surveys

EPP Created Key Assessments

#1 – Professional Disposition

#3 – Evaluation of student Teaching

Course Evaluations

Case Study Focus Group Sessions

Informal

Exit Interviews

TOTAL bi-weekly meetings

· Course Evaluations

· Exit surveys

· Alumni Surveys

Uploaded Evidence Packets:

4.4.1 – EPP Created Completer Surveys

1.1.1 Professional Disposition

1.1.3 Evaluation of Student Teaching

Instructor provided course evaluations

4.1.1 Case Study Pilot Project

2.1.6 TOTA Program Documents

Parity Table

January 23, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to provide documentation verifying the following program is currently under review by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE): Early Childhood Education (Preschool – Grade 3) The above program is and remains approved by the State of Indiana. Indiana State University submitted a request for a review in September 2018. By doing so, Indiana State University adhered to the timeline and deadlines of the IDOE completely. The IDOE will be providing a report for Indiana State University to include in their evidence file well in advance of their onsite visit. Unfortunately, the report will not be completed in time for the submission of their self-study report, and therefore we are instructing Indiana State University to upload a copy of this letter within AIMS in lieu of a report. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely,

Scott Bogan Director of Higher Education and Ed. Prep. Programs

mailto:[email protected]

Early Childhood Education Minor State letter

8/19/2015 FW: AACSB - Board of Director's Vote Confirmation - Indiana ... - Susan Powers

https://webmail.indstate.edu/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADliMjFlNTMxLWQyODUtNDk1Ny05MzAyLTNhMzc2ODgwNzc5MABGAA… 1/2

FW: AACSB ‐ Board of Director's Vote Confirmation ‐ Indiana StateUniversity

Here is the official notification from AACSB. Brien N. Smith, Ph.D.Dean, Scott College of BusinessIndiana State University812‐237‐2000 | Fax 812‐237‐8135 From: Amy Roberts [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:02 PMTo: Brien SmithCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barb HigelSubject: AACSB Board of Director's Vote Confirmation Indiana State University On behalf of Linda A. Livingstone, Chair, AACSB International Board of Directors, it is our pleasure to inform you thatthe Peer Review Team's recommendation for extension of accreditation of the business degree programs offered byyour school has been concurred with by the Continuous Improvement Review Committee and ratified by the Board ofDirectors. Congratulations to you, the faculty, students, staff, and all supporters of the school. We are confident that you are eager to share this important news, and you are welcome to make yourannouncement immediately. For your announcement, you can find sample press releases and other valuableresources in the Promoting Your Accreditation section on the AACSB website. Official correspondence confirming your accreditation achievement will arrive within the next few weeks. Again, congratulations from the entire accreditation services staff at AACSB. Best regards,

AmyAmy RobertsSenior Coordinator, Accreditation Services

AACSB International The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business777 South Harbour Island Blvd Suite 750 Tampa, FL 33602 USA Main: 18137696500 | Direct: 18137696537 | Fax: 18137696559

Brien Smith

Wed 8/19/2015 3:10 PM

To:Susan Powers ;

Cc:Ruth Rukes ; Joe Harder ;

http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/promotion/

8/19/2015 FW: AACSB - Board of Director's Vote Confirmation - Indiana ... - Susan Powers

https://webmail.indstate.edu/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADliMjFlNTMxLWQyODUtNDk1Ny05MzAyLTNhMzc2ODgwNzc5MABGAA… 2/2

Email: [email protected] | Website: www.aacsb.edu AACSB International advances quality management education worldwide through accreditation, thoughtleadership, and valueadded services.

http://www.aacsb.edu/


Business Education Accreditation Letter

January 23, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to provide documentation verifying the following program is currently under review by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE): Engineering and Technology (Grades 5 – 12) The above program is and remains approved by the State of Indiana. Indiana State University submitted a request for a review in September 2018. By doing so, Indiana State University adhered to the timeline and deadlines of the IDOE completely. The IDOE will be providing a report for Indiana State University to include in their evidence file well in advance of their onsite visit. Unfortunately, the report will not be completed in time for the submission of their self-study report, and therefore we are instructing Indiana State University to upload a copy of this letter within AIMS in lieu of a report. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely,



Engineering and Technology State Letter

Art Education Accreditation Letter

January 23, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to provide documentation verifying the following program is currently under review by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE): High Ability (Gifted and Talented) (Preschool – Grade 12) The above program is and remains approved by the State of Indiana. Indiana State University submitted a request for a review in September 2018. By doing so, Indiana State University adhered to the timeline and deadlines of the IDOE completely. The IDOE will be providing a report for Indiana State University to include in their evidence file well in advance of their onsite visit. Unfortunately, the report will not be completed in time for the submission of their self-study report, and therefore we are instructing Indiana State University to upload a copy of this letter within AIMS in lieu of a report. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely,



High Ability State Letter

Music Education Accreditation Letter

January 23, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to provide documentation verifying the following program is currently under review by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE): Teachers of English Learners (Preschool – Grade 12) The above program is and remains approved by the State of Indiana. Indiana State University submitted a request for a review in September 2018. By doing so, Indiana State University adhered to the timeline and deadlines of the IDOE completely. The IDOE will be providing a report for Indiana State University to include in their evidence file well in advance of their onsite visit. Unfortunately, the report will not be completed in time for the submission of their self-study report, and therefore we are instructing Indiana State University to upload a copy of this letter within AIMS in lieu of a report. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely,



Teachers of English Learners

School Counseling Accreditation Letter

January 23, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to provide documentation verifying the following program is currently under review by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE): World Languages (Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Latin, Spanish) The above program is and remains approved by the State of Indiana. Indiana State University submitted a request for a review in September 2018. By doing so, Indiana State University adhered to the timeline and deadlines of the IDOE completely. The IDOE will be providing a report for Indiana State University to include in their evidence file well in advance of their onsite visit. Unfortunately, the report will not be completed in time for the submission of their self-study report, and therefore we are instructing Indiana State University to upload a copy of this letter within AIMS in lieu of a report. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely,



World Languages State Letter

b. Description of Organizational Structure

Please see Evidence 3 - BCOE Organizational Chart for the organizational structure ofthe Bayh College of Education.

c. Vision, Mission, and Goals

The Mission, Vision, and Goals are outlined in the Bayh College of Education'sConceptual Framework document. The conceptual framework is a foundationaldocument that identifies the core beliefs of the COE. These beliefs are the foundationof all programs housed in the Bayh College of Education. Evidence 5 - BCOE Conceptual Framework

Mission: To prepare, promote, and advance educational and human serviceprofessionals for a diverse and ever-changing world.

Vision: As we move to the future, we envision our College as a rewarding learningcommunity for students, faculty, and staff. We continuously embrace new knowledgeand model the best pedagogical practices. Our facilities enhance our work. Acooperative, supportive culture exists among the faculty and staff within the Collegeand across campus. Faculty and staff members are chosen carefully and mentoredwell. We employ continuous improvement tools and philosophies on a daily basis,using data to make decisions and improve our instruction and processes in a timelymanner. Student success demonstrates the genuine support they are getting fromfaculty and staff.

The sphere of influence of our learning community is expanding. Our administrators,teachers, and human service professionals are recognized for their educationalcontributions, including outreach services to those whom they serve. Our students,faculty and staff work collaboratively with schools and agencies to create rich,supportive, and healthy teaching and learning environments. Support for the missionis clear, the state wishes to increase its investment in what we do, alumni tell us howmuch they value their education, stakeholders and agencies seek our faculty for theirexpertise, granting agents seek us out, employers seek our graduates, increasingnumbers of capable students desire an education with us, and we receive persistentrecognition for our achievements.

With stable and consistent leadership, our objectives are clear and our work flexibleand agile as we organize ways to be most effective, requesting and receiving theresources needed. We are dedicated to fostering a spirit of inquiry, and supporting acommitment to excellence for ourselves and our students. As one coherentorganization, our collegial team recognizes and achieves the full potential of workingtogether as we take pride in our work and feel fulfilled.

BCOE Goals:1. Increase enrollment and student success2. Advance experiential learning 3. Enhance community engagement 4. Strengthen and leverage programs of strength and promise 5. Diversify revenue: Philanthropy, contracts, and grants 6. Recruit and retain great faculty and staff


7. Raise the profile of educator preparation8. Promote long-range academic planning

d. EPP's Shared Values and Beliefs for Educator Preparation

Evidence 5 - BCOE Conceptual Framework The Bayh College of Education has established shared values and beliefs that guidethe practices of all programs housed within the BCOE. 1. Student Success - We bring to bear scholarship, professionalism, respect, and highexpectations for all students.2. Collegiality - We enjoy being a collaborative team in a positive environment thatcommunicates well and works together for the greater good of all.3. Caring for Others - We are compassionate and supportive of others.4. Responsibility - We are dedicated, dependable, and hard working.5. Honesty - We have integrity and are trustworthy, ethical, and fair.6. Openness to Change - We prize creativity and support continual improvement.7. Social Justice and Diversity - We work to create environments that support andenable all members of our community to thrive.

With this year being a strategic planning year, the BCOE is in the process ofreviewing and revising the mission, vision and values to align better with the needsof the field today.

EPP Accreditation Status

e. Is the EPP regionally or institutionally accredited?

YesNo. the EPP is ineligible for regional/institutional accreditation or suchaccreditation is not available

EPP is regionally or institutionally accredited

a. If your institution/EPP is regionally accredited, please upload a PDF copy of the award of regionalaccreditation here. If your institution/EPP is NOT regional accredited, please move to the next page.

HLC response Letter2011 HLC Letter

See Attachment panel below.

Table 2. Program Characteristics

a. Complete this table of program characteristics by entering the information requested for every program orprogram option offered by the EPP. Cross check the list with the programs listed in the EPP's academic catalog,if any, as well as the list of state-approved registered programs, if applicable. Site Visitors will reference thislist in AIMS during the accreditation review process. Note: EPP is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data imported into this table.

Name ofProgram/specialty

area

Enrollment incurrent fall

cycle

Enrollment inlast fall cycle Degree level

Certificate orlicensure level

Method ofDelivery

State(s) inwhich program

is approved

Date of stateapproval(s)

Science Education 8 6 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of


2018-2019Special Education-Undergraduate

4 3 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

Early ChildhoodEducation minor

62 49 Initial Other Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

Social StudiesEducation


Special Education-Graduate

8 8 Initial Master's Online Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

TechnologyEducation


English Education 12 8 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

School BuildingLeadership

42 30 Advanced Master's Face toFace/Online

Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

World Languages 0 3 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

School Psychology 18 16 Advanced Specialist orC.A.S.

Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

School DistrictLeadership

42 30 Advanced Specialist orC.A.S.

Face toFace/Online

Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

Gifted andTalentedCertification

12 9 Advanced Endorsementonly

Online Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

Math Education 4 3 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

PhysicalEducation


ElementaryEducation


English as a NewLanguage

34 30 Advanced PostBaccalaureate

Online Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

Art Education 3 3 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

BusinessEducation


School Counseling 22 21 Advanced Master's Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

Music Education 20 18 Initial Baccalaureate Face to Face Indiana Continued stateapproval as of2018-2019

NOTE FOR IMPORTING SPECIALTY AREA PROGRAM INFORMATION Appending: Will add the selected program(s) to the table


Replacing: Will clear out all information currently entered in the table and will repopulate the table with the selectedprogram(s)

Table 3. EPP Characteristics

Complete this table of EPP characteristics in AIMS to provide an expanded profile by which the accreditationprocess is managed by CAEP staff. This AIMS version of this table, in which the data are actually entered, hasdrop-down menus by which characteristics are selected and the table is completed.

Control of Institution PublicStudent Body CoedCarnegie Class Doctoral/Research UniversitiesLocation Urban

Teacher Preparation Levels Currently offering initial teacher preparation programsCurrently offering advanced educator preparation programs

EPP Type Institution of Higher Education: State/RegionalResearch InstitutionReligious Affiliations Not applicableLanguage of Instruction EnglishInstitutional Accreditation (Affiliations) Higher Learning Commission

Table 4. Qualification Table for EPP-based Clinical Educators

a. The clinical educator (EPP-based clinical faculty & supervisors) qualifications table is completed by providinginformation for each of the EPP-based clinical educators.

Name Highest degree earned Field or specialty area ofhighest degree Program Assignment(s)Teaching assignment or

role within theprogram(s)

P-12 certificates orlicensures held

P-12 experiencesincluding teaching or

administration dates ofengagement in theseroles, last five years

If EPP is not using Table 4a, upload the clinical educator qualifications table being used below.

Clinical Educator List


Table 5. The Parity Table

a. The parity table of curricular, fiscal, facility, and administrative and support capacity for quality is used tosatisfy requirements of the U.S. Department of Education and is completed by providing data relevant for theEPP and making a comparison to an EPP-determined comparative entity. The comparative entity might beanother clinical EPP within a university structure, a national organization, the college or university as a wholeor another entity identified as a benchmark by the EPP. This chart is an example of a chart that the EPP cancomplete.

Capacity Dimension EPP description of metric(s) EPP data Comparative entity data Title and description of supplemental evidence/documentation of quality for each dimensionFacilitiesFiscal SupportAdministrative supportCandidate support servicesCandidate feedback, formal and informal

Upload your self-developed parity table below

Parity Table



Table 6. Off Campus, Satellite, Branch a. The Accreditation Plan is an educator preparation provider's (EPP's) identification of the sites outside of the

main campus or administrative headquarters and the programs offered at each site that will be included in theEPP's accreditation review. This information, in combination with the table of program characteristics, is usedby CAEP staff and lead site visitor to plan the site visit, including the sites that will be visited by the site team.

Geographic Site(s)administered by the EPP

Program offered at eachsite

Is the program to beincluded in accreditation

review? (Y or N)

Is the program approvedby state in which

program is offered? (Y or N or approval not

required)

Notes/Comments

None other than themain campus at IndianaState University

Table 7. Proprietary Assessments

Please list proprietary assessments used by the EPP (no more than 10):

ProprietaryAssessment No. Title of Assessment

Validity & Reliability information ifavailable & applicable

ProprietaryAssessment No.1 Indiana CORE Assessments for Educator Licensure

ProprietaryAssessment No.2 PRAXIS-II

ProprietaryAssessment No.3

The Indiana CORE Assessment for SchoolAdministrators - District Level


The Indiana CORE Assessment for SchoolAdministrators - Building Level


Indiana Core Assessment for Exceptional Needs -Blind or Low Vision


Indiana Core Assessment for Educator Licensure -High Ability


The Indiana Core Assessment for ExceptionalNeeds - Mild Intervention

ProprietaryAssessment No.8ProprietaryAssessment No.9ProprietaryAssessment No.10

Please map above proprietary assessments to the appropriate CAEP Standards:

CAEP

Standard 1Ini.

CAEPStandard 1

Adv.

CAEPStandard 2

Ini.

CAEPStandard 2

Adv.

CAEPStandard 3

Ini.

CAEPStandard 3

Adv.

CAEPStandard 4

Ini.

CAEPStandard 4

Adv

CAEPStandard 5

Ini.

CAEPStandard 5

Adv.State

ProprietaryAssessmentNo.1ProprietaryAssessmentNo.2ProprietaryAssessmentNo.3ProprietaryAssessmentNo.4ProprietaryAssessment


No.5ProprietaryAssessmentNo.6

ProprietaryAssessmentNo.7ProprietaryAssessmentNo.8ProprietaryAssessmentNo.9ProprietaryAssessmentNo.10

II. CAEP Standards and Evidence

This page is intended to be blank

Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge (Initial Programs)

i. Evidence/data/tables. Upload each item of evidence under the appropriate component(s) of the standard.

1 1.1.1 - Key Assessment 1 - Professional Disposition1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards2 1.1.2 - Key Assessment 2 -Teacher Work Sample.docx1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards1.2 Use of research and evidence to measure students' progress1.4 All P-12 students afforded access to college- and career-ready standards.1.5 Model and apply technology standards3 1.1.3 - Key Assessment 3 - Evaluation of Student Teaching.docx1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards1.2 Use of research and evidence to measure students' progress1.5 Model and apply technology standards4 1.1.4 - Key Assessment 4 - Unit Report.docx1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards1.2 Use of research and evidence to measure students' progress1.4 All P-12 students afforded access to college- and career-ready standards.1.5 Model and apply technology standards5 1.1.5 - Key Assessment 5 - Licensure Test Evidence.docx1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards6 1.3.1 - List of Program SPA Accreditations.docx1.3 Application of content and pedagogical knowledge7 1.3.2 - IDOE Approval Letter for State Review.pdf1.3 Application of content and pedagogical knowledge8 5.1.1 - QAS System.docx


1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards ii. Analysis report. Write a narrative that delineates the connection between the evidence and the Standard.

Standard 1.1 Understanding of the 10 InTASC Standards: Candidates' understanding of the ten InTASC standards are assessed using multiplemeasures at multiple progression points throughout the candidates' program. ThisEPP uses a combination of EPP created assessments and the Indiana Licensure examas evidence of content and pedagogical knowledge that impacts P-12 studentlearning. A thorough review and analysis of the evidence highlights several strengthsas well as areas for growth and change.

The EPP has identified four key assessments; Professional Disposition, Teacher WorkSample, Unit Report, and the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching which arestrategically placed throughout the candidates' program to monitor candidateprogression. Evidence 5.1.1 - QAS System, pages 20-21, outlines which assessmentsare administered at each progression level. The strategic placement of these keyassessments allows program faculty an opportunity to monitor progression andprovide early intervention as necessary.

First, the Professional Disposition assesses the Learner and Learning domain. Thisassessment is administered at several progression points during the candidates'program. (Evidence 1.1.1 - Key Assessment #1 Professional Disposition)

Second, the Unit Report (secondary candidates) and the Teacher Work Sample(Elementary and Special Education candidates) correspond to all four domains of theInTASC standards. Successful completion, ratings of Meets or Exceeds, on theTeacher Work Sample and Unit Report demonstrate proficiency on each of theInTASC standards (Evidence 1.1.4 - Key Assessment #4 - Unit Report and 1.1.2 -Key Assessment #2 - Teacher Work Sample). Data presented for the Unit Report arefor all secondary candidates combined. Disaggregated data by content area can befound in evidence 1.1.4.

Third, the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching is aligned with all ten InTASCstandards and the individual components. This assessment is administered at the endof the student teaching placement. Overall ratings of Meets or Exceeds Expectationson the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching demonstrate a candidate has anunderstanding of the 10 InTASC standards. (Evidence 1.1.3 Key Assessment #3 -Final Evaluation of Student Teaching)

The final assessment of the candidates' understanding of the InTASC standards is thelicensure test. (Evidence 1.1.5 - Key Assessment #5 - Licensure Test Evidence, DataTable 2)

I. Learner and Learning On the Teacher Work Sample, 6 of 18 elements correspond to Learner and Learning.Three cycles of data are presented: Fall 2017 n=18, Spring 2018 n=57, and Fall2018 n=25. Across the six elements, 100% of candidates Met or Exceededexpectations in Fall 2017 and 93%-100% in Spring 2018. In Fall 2018 as many as48% of candidates were rated at the Developing level. 52%-76% of candidates Metor Exceeded Expectations on this domain, with a relatively low percentage of


candidates scoring at the Exceeds level (0%-12%). This trend in scoring for Fall 2018is not evident on the other assessments assessing this domain.

On the Unit Report 6 of 16 elements correspond to Learner and Learning. Threecycles of data were reported: Fall 2017 n=51, Spring 2018 n=56, Fall 2018 n=68.For all three cycles and for all elements, the range of candidates scoring at the Meetsor Exceeds Expectations was 96%-100%. Two candidates scored at the Does NotMeet Expectations level. One student switched majors to a non-education degree andone candidate resubmitted the Unit Report during the student teaching semester.

On the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching elements 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3dcorrespond to Learner and Learning. Three cycles of data are reported. 100% ofcandidates in elementary education and special education were rated at the Meets orExceeds Expectations Level on all elements pertaining to Learner and Learning. Onesecondary education candidate was rated at Does Not Meet Expectations on oneelement in Spring 2018. The remaining 98% of secondary candidates scored at theMeets or Exceeds Expectations level.

Overall, for the Learner and Learning Domain, across all key assessments, all threecycles of data, and across all three initial programs, 96% of candidates were rated atthe required level of proficiency on this domain. There was one exception on one keyassessment, the Teacher Work Sample, for elementary candidates in the Fall 2018where there was a high percentage of candidates who did not meet the requiredproficiency level as mentioned above.

II. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge On the Teacher Work Sample, 4 of 18 elements correspond to Content andPedagogical Knowledge. Three cycles of data are presented: Fall 2017 n=18, Spring2018 n=57, and Fall 2018 n=25. Across the four elements, 94% - 100% ofcandidates Met or Exceeded expectations in Fall 2017 with a small percentage(5.6%) of candidates rated at the Emerging level on one element. 93%-100%candidates were rated at the Meets or Exceeds level in Spring 2018 with 2-5% ofcandidates falling below the threshold on one or more elements. In Fall 2018, asmany as 48% of candidates were rated at the Developing level. There was a lowpercentage (4%) of candidates who were rated at the Exceeds Expectations level inFall 2018. Again, this trend in scoring for Fall 2018 is not evident on the otherassessments assessing this domain.

On the Unit Report, 3 of 16 elements correspond to Content and PedagogicalKnowledge. Three cycles of data were reported: Fall 2017 n=51, Spring 2018 n=56,Fall 2018 n=68. For all three cycles and for all elements in this domain, the range ofcandidates scoring at the Meets or Exceeds Expectations was 98%-100%. Twocandidates scored at the Does Not Meet Expectations level. One student switchedmajors to a non-education degree and one candidate resubmitted the Unit Reportduring the student teaching semester.

On the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching, elements 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 5a, 5b, 5ccorrespond to Content and Pedagogical Knowledge. 100% of candidates inelementary education and special education were rated at the Meets or Exceeds


Expectations Level on all element. One secondary education candidate was rated atDoes Not meet Expectations on one element. There was a significant percentage ofcandidates who received a No Basis for Judgment rating on 4d: Accesses localresources to evaluate content knowledge in their primary language. This trend wasevident across all three programs. Further exploration into this trend may benecessary to evaluate whether more direction should be provided to raters or ifcandidates do not have adequate opportunity to demonstrate this elementeffectively.

Overall, for the Content and Pedagogical domain, across all key assessments, allthree cycles of data, and across all three initial programs, 93% of candidates wererated at the required level of proficiency on this domain. There was one exception onthe Teacher Work Sample, for elementary candidates in the Fall 2018 where therewas a high percentage of candidates who did not meet the required proficiency level.

III. Instructional Practice On the Teacher Work Sample, 4 of 18 elements correspond to Instructional Practice.Three cycles of data are presented: Fall 2017 n=18, Spring 2018 n=57, and Fall2018 n=25. Across the four elements, 100% of candidates Met or Exceededexpectations in Fall 2017. 95%-100% candidates were rated at the Meets or Exceedslevel in Spring 2018 with 2-5% of candidates falling below the threshold on one ormore elements. In Fall 2018, 24-48% of candidates were rated at the Developinglevel on one or more elements. There was a low percentage (4-8%) of candidateswho met the Exceeds Expectations level in Fall 2018. Again, this trend in scoring forFall 2018 is not evident on the other assessments assessing this domain.

On the Unit Report, 4 of 16 elements correspond to Instructional Practice. Threecycles of data were reported: Fall 2017 n=51, Spring 2018 n=56, Fall 2018 n=68.For all three cycles and for all elements, the range of candidates scoring at the Meetsor Exceeds Expectations was 96%-100%. Two candidates scored at the Does NotMeet Expectations level. One student switched majors to a non-education degree andone candidate resubmitted the Unit Report during the student teaching semester.

On the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching, elements 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a,8b, 8c, 8d correspond to Instructional Practice. 100% of candidates in elementaryeducation and special education scored at the Meets or Exceeds Expectations level.For elementary education, there was a high percentage, 20%-47% of candidateswho were rated at the No Basis for Judgment on 8b: Accesses family and CommunityResources. This is an area for continued exploration to determine why there is a highpercentage of candidates rated as No Basis for Judgment. For secondary candidates,there was one candidate in Spring 2018 who scored at the Does Not MeetExpectations Level. The remaining 98% of secondary candidates scored at the Meetsor Exceeds Expectations level.

Overall, for the Instructional Practice domain, across all key assessments, all threecycles of data, and across all three initial programs, 95% of candidates were rated atthe required level of proficiency on this domain with one exception on the TeacherWork Sample as noted in previous domains.


IV. Professional Responsibility InTASC 9 and 10 On the Professional Disposition, 2 of the 10 elements (Integrity and Collegiality)correspond to the Professional Responsibility domain. The professional dispositionassessment is administered at three points in the candidates' program, datapresented are for disposition during coursework (midpoint) and disposition duringstudent teaching (final). Midpoint professional disposition data are reported for threecycles, Fall 2017 n=136, Spring 2018 n=142, and Fall 2018 n=144. Data presentedare for all EPP candidates. Candidates are expected to be at the Proficient level at themidpoint assessment. Less than 65% of candidates scored at the Proficient level;20%-44% Fall 2017, 29%-65% in Spring 2018, and 55% in Fall 2018.

Professional disposition data during student teaching are reported for three cycles:Fall 2017 n=49, Spring 2018 n=147, and Fall 2018 n=41. Data presented are for allEPP candidates. Candidates are expected to be at the Proficient level. For all threecycles, 98% of candidates were rated at the Proficient level.

On the Teacher Work Sample, 4 of 18 elements correspond to ProfessionalResponsibility. Three cycles of data are presented: Fall 2017 n=18, Spring 2018n=57, and Fall 2018 n=25. Across the four elements, 100% of candidates Met orExceeded expectations in Fall 2017 and 95% of candidates in Spring 2018 with 2-5%of candidates falling below the threshold on one or more elements. In Fall 2018 asmany as 28% of candidates were rated at the Developing level. There was a lowpercentage (8%) of candidates who met the Exceeds Expectations level in Fall 2018.Again, this trend in scoring for Fall 2018 is not evident on the other assessmentsassessing this domain.

On the Unit Report, 3 of 16 elements correspond to Professional Responsibility. Threecycles of data were reported: Fall 2017 n=51, Spring 2018 n=56, Fall 2018 n=68.For all three cycles and for all elements, the range of candidates scoring at the Meetsor Exceeds Expectations was 98%-100%. Two candidates scored at the Does NotMeet Expectations level. One candidate switched majors to a non-education degreeand one candidate resubmitted the Unit Report during the student teachingsemester.

On the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching, elements 9a, 9b, 9c, 10a, 10b, 10c, 10dcorrespond to Professional Responsibility. 100% of candidates in elementaryeducation and special education scored at the Meets or Exceeds Expectations level.There was a high percentage, 28%-43% of elementary candidates and 44%-47% ofsecondary candidates who were rated at the No Basis for Judgment on 10c: BuildsConnections with Community Resources. This is an area for continued exploration todetermine why there is a high percentage of candidates rated as No Basis forJudgment. For secondary candidates there was one candidate in Spring 2018 whoscored at the Does Not Meet Expectations Level. All other secondary candidates,98% scored at the Meets or Exceeds Expectations level.

Overall, for the Professional Responsibility domain, across all key assessments, allthree cycles of data, and across all three initial programs, at least 98% of candidateswere rated at the required level of proficiency on this domain with one exception onthe Teacher Work Sample as noted in previous domains. Additionally, this is the only


domain in which the Professional Disposition is aligned. The data show significantimprovements from the midpoint to the final disposition. At the midpoint assessment,there was a significant percentage of candidates who were rated at the Adequate orBelow Expectations level; 45% in Fall 2017, 71% in Spring 2018, and 1% in Fall2018. By the final administration of this assessment during student teaching, thepercentage of candidates at the Adequate level on these two elements decreaseddrastically to less than 2% in Spring 2018.

Overall Analysis and Future Directions:As a whole, the data demonstrate mastery of the InTASC standards across allassessments at different points in the candidates program. However, data did show asignificant decline in scores on the Teacher Work Sample for the Fall 2018 semester.On 15 of the 18 components assessing the InTASC standards on the Teacher WorkSample, 12%-48% of the candidates were assessed at the Developing level. Thistrend was not evident in the Fall 2018 on the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching.Several factors could contribute to this anomaly: errors in entering scores in theassessment system or differences in faculty teaching the course that particularsemester. Additionally, the Teacher Work Sample was revised for Spring 2018 to afour- level rubric. Fall 2018 may have been the first time that faculty used the four-level rubric which may have impacted the scoring. Consideration should be given toexploring why there was a decline in candidates' scores on the Teacher Work Samplein Fall 2018 and measures should be put in place to minimize the vast difference inthe Spring cycle. This may require additional rater training on the assessment orrevising the indicators to be more clear.

After a thorough review of the evidence for standard 1.1, the majority of keyassessments occur in the final semester of the candidates' program. Adding anadditional key assessment earlier on the candidate's progression may be beneficial toassist faculty with improved monitoring and allow candidates to have earlier feedbackon their performance. Additionally, informal observations are conducted during thestudent teaching experience, however; they are not considered key assessments.Candidates may benefit from adding one or more of these observations early on inthe program to help candidates self-monitor their progression. Consideration shouldbe given to adding the informal observations of student teaching as a formal keyassessment.

On the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching, there was a high percentage ofcandidates who were rated at the No Basis for Judgment on elements that pertainedto community involvement. Further exploration is necessary to determine if this isdue to unclear indicators of what constitutes community involvement or if ourcandidates are lacking opportunities during their student teaching experiences todemonstrate this concept.

An evaluation of student teaching occurs during the TOTAL, Teachers of TomorrowAdvancing Learning, semester for elementary education and special educationcandidates and during early field experience for secondary candidates. Currently thisevaluation is completed on the 'Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Form'. It may bebeneficial to rename this point of administration to differentiate between early fieldexperience/TOTAL internship and the true cumulative "Final" Evaluation of Student


Teaching.

Standard 1.2 Understanding of the Teaching Profession:Candidates are assessed on their understanding of the profession through their useof research to guide planning and teaching, the use of assessments, and their abilityto monitor P-12 learner growth and then use the data to improve instruction. Theseareas are assessed at multiple points using multiple measures throughout thecandidates' program.

Summary of Evidence:First, in Assignment 3 of the Teacher Work Sample elementary education candidatesdesign a lesson, administer a pre-test, use the data from the pre-test to informchanges and administer a post-test to measure their impact on student learning. InAssignment 4, candidates provide an analysis of the pre and post-test datadocumenting how the data was used to impact student learning. (Evidence 1.1.2 -Key Assessment #2 - Teacher Work Sample). Secondary education candidatescomplete a similar assignment and are assessed on this on criterion 5 and 7 on theUnit Report. (Evidence 1.1.4 - Key Assessment #4 - Unit Report)

Second, all candidates' use of research and evidence to measure their P-12 students'progress and their professional practice is assessed by the host teacher anduniversity supervisor during their student teaching experience using the FinalEvaluation of Student Teaching form. (Evidence 1.1.3 Key Assessment #3 -Evaluation of Student Teaching)

1.2 Analysis and Interpretation:On the element assessing pre and post-test analysis within the Teacher WorkSample, 100% of elementary education candidates scored at the Meets or Exceedslevel in Fall 2017, 96.5% in Spring 2018, and 88% in Fall 2018. The decline in thepercentage of candidates who met or exceeded expectations in Fall 2018 may be aresult of several factors; there was a recent revision to the rubric from a three- pointto a four- point and the faculty teaching the course in Fall 2018 may not have usedthe revised rubric previously. An additional measure of P-12 student impact is thepre-test and post-test scores from the Teacher Work Sample (Evidence 1.1.2 pg.21). In Fall 2018, 23 of the 26 elementary education candidates showedimprovements in their class test averages from the pre-test to the post-test and 20out of 23 in Spring 2018. Between the two cycles, 6 candidates showed no changeon their class average test scores from the pre-test to the post-test. It is difficult todetermine if the lack of change in class test scores for those six candidates is a resultof a) an error in the inputting of data in the spreadsheet, b) an error running thedata, c) P-12 students not being present for both the pre-test and post-test, or d)difficulties in the candidates instruction/planning between the pre-test and the post-test.

On the element "Assessment of Learning" within the Unit Report, 100% of secondaryeducation candidates in the Fall 2017 met or exceeded expectations, 96% in Spring2018, and 99% in Fall 2018. An additional measure of P-12 student impact is thepre-test and post-test scores from the Unit Report (Evidence 1.1.4 pg. 56-57). 80 of


the 81 secondary candidates showed improved class average test scores from thepre-test to the post-test.

The data provide substantial evidence that our candidates have strengths at selectingand/or designing assessments that provide evidence of student learning.Furthermore, the data support that our candidates have strengths using assessmentsas research tools to understand and respond to their students' learning needs suchthat they have a positive impact on student learning.

1.2 Future Use:Further exploration regarding the decline in candidates' performance on the TeacherWork Sample in Fall 2018 is warranted as several factors may have attributed to thelower scores during that one cycle of data. While candidates did not meet theminimum proficiency level on the Teacher Work Sample, those candidatessuccessfully completed the capstone course and performed at or above the minimumproficiency level on the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching. One question movingforward is do we as an EPP, adequately identify and put interventions in place forthose candidates who do not meet the proficiency level?

Standard 1.3 - Specialized Professional AssociationsOf the 12 initial licensure programs listed, nine are fully accredited, one is recognizedon a probationary status until 2020, and two are in the process of a State Review(report submitted on 9/15/18). (Evidence 1.3.1 - List of Program SPA Accreditations)and (Evidence 1.3.2 - IDOE Approval Letter for State Review)

Recognized with Probation Math Education - Recognized with probation until 2-1-2020

Standard 1.4 Candidates Demonstrate College-Career Ready Standards: The Teacher Work Sample (elementary and special education candidates)/UnitReport (secondary candidates) assess the candidate's ability to teach to college andcareer-ready standards.

For elementary education and special education candidates, Assignment 3 of theTeacher Work Sample is a measure used to assess the candidate's ability to teach tocollege and career-ready standards. Candidates create a five-day lesson plan whichis aligned with the Indiana Education Standards for career and college readiness. Thiselement is highlighted in green in the Teacher Work Sample Key Assessment packet.(Evidence 1.1.2 - Key Assessment #2 - Teacher Work Sample)

For secondary education candidates, Criterion 6 of the Unit Report is a measure usedto assess the candidate's ability to teach to college and career-ready standards.Candidates create a five-day lesson plan which is aligned with the Indiana EducationStandards which demonstrate career and college readiness. This component ishighlighted in green in the Unit Report Key Assessment packet. (Evidence 1.1.4 - KeyAssessment #4 - Unit Report).

1.4 Analysis and Interpretation:


The data demonstrate that our candidates have strengths at planning andimplementing lessons to prepare students to be college and career ready. Data arepresented for three cycles; Fall 2017 n=18, Spring 2018 n=57, and Fall 2017 n=25.98% of elementary education candidates demonstrated proficiency at the "Meets" or"Exceeds" levels for the College and Career Ready criterion for both Fall 2017 andSpring 2018. In Fall 2018, 72% of the elementar